Trump II

[Alan Klein]

Interesting that you believe CNN when only they have the news. 

Well, in any case, the information about the details such as the type of missile, type of boat and the port the boat is leaving from are too specific to believe in was leaked from  anyone but an intelligence agency.  My guess, the administration wanted to world to know for political reasons to get their support against NK and for NK to know that we're watching their every move.  If you're worried about a possible war, it's got to be upsetting to realize that your enemy has your military moves surveilled to that degree.

The thing that I'm concerned about and the world should be as well, is does the  situation demand war?  Yeah, I know people say Kim's nuts.  But he isn't stupid. And frankly, if I was him, I'd want to have nukes too.   But. they're not going to attack America knowing they'll get wiped out when we retaliate.  They just want to protect their rotten little regime.  So maybe we should just isolate them and ignore them. Let them stew in their Middle Kingdom.  On the other hand, they will develop more and more nukes,  so do we want to leave them there as a potential adversary for later when they will be more dangerous or take them out now? 

What a mess. 

We ought to get the Congress involved.  This shouldn't be Trump's decision.  Going to war is up to Congress.  This requires a big discussion in the public. 

[James Clark]

They're Left Biased.  Not as bad as CNNN or MSNBC or some of the mainstream media.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/

Nevertheless, from your own link:

"...it has grown to achieve a national reputation as a high-quality review organ with a moderate worldview. The periodical has won more National Magazine Awards than any other monthly magazine. Has a slightly liberal bias in reporting coverage, put produces exceptional journalism that is sourced and factual."

In other words, it's hardly fair to call it a place to visit only to find out "what the left is thinking." 

[Alan Klein]

Nevertheless, from your own link:

"...it has grown to achieve a national reputation as a high-quality review organ with a moderate worldview. The periodical has won more National Magazine Awards than any other monthly magazine. Has a slightly liberal bias in reporting coverage, put produces exceptional journalism that is sourced and factual."

In other words, it's hardly fair to call it a place to visit only to find out "what the left is thinking." 

You make a good point.  Well, that's why I read them once in awhile rather then the way left where the crazies are just out of their minds.  Of course, the author is very important.  The one for the article is left thinking.  I glanced through his article.  The impression I got was that he thought the right believed falsehoods more than the left.  I disagree.  We're all capable of allowing our egos to distort the truth.  No one has a monopoly on BS. 

[Peter McLennan]

I won't waste my time disputing its one-sidedness.

Surprise, surprise.

[Schewe]

Well, this would be good for the climate :~)

Al Gore says 'ethical reasons' could end Trump presidency early


Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore attends a screening for "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power"
in Los Angeles, California, U.S., July 25, 2017.

BERLIN (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore suggested on Tuesday that the presidency of Donald Trump could end prematurely for "ethical reasons," drawing laughter from a packed movie theater at the European premiere of his latest film on climate change.

"We’re only six months into the experiment with Trump. Some experiments are ended early for ethical reasons," Gore said, acknowledging the "provocative" nature of his comment.

Gore said he was convinced that U.S. cities, states and business executives would meet U.S. obligations under the 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change, despite Trump's decision in June to withdraw from the global pact.

"We have a global agreement and the American people are part of this agreement in spite of Donald Trump," he told hundreds of moviegoers at Berlin's Zoo Palast cinema after a showing of his new film, "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power."

"We can win this ... All we need is the political will," he said, adding his hope that the United States would "soon once again" have a leader who was committed to halting global warming.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And on the subject of Climate Change, as far as Trump is concerned. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the report, now that we can compare the unofficial original with a revised official version, if it's ever officially published ...

US government’s grim climate summary draft gets unofficially published
Fate of congressionally mandated report uncertain in the face of Trump’s disbelief.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/us-government-scientists-finish-climate-study-will-it-be-published/

QUOTE "In 1990, during the presidency of the first George Bush, Congress passed the Global Change Research Act. Along with reorganizing government-funded climate research, the Act stipulates that, every four years, the federal agencies involved provide an update on the state of climate science.

It has been four years, and the next report's draft has been completed and has undergone scientific vetting.

The draft paints a grim picture of how the US is already dealing with a variety of issues related to climate change and how much worse most of those issues will get during the coming decades. And the report places the blame squarely on humanity's greenhouse gas emissions.

This message won't go over well with the administration of President Donald Trump, which has a number of members who are openly hostile to the scientific community's conclusions. As a result, a lot of people are worried that the report will never be formally published or its conclusions will be watered down by further edits. These are the fears that undoubtedly prompted someone to leak the draft to The New York Times. 
[...]"

The Ars Technica article also mentions the censoring of the terms used by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which I addressed at a different table in the Coffee Corner but didn't want to cross post:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.msg991645#msg991645

Here's the link to the Final (but yet unofficial) report as published by the New York times:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

and here's the link to the PDF document itself:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf

Cheers,
Bart

[Otto Phocus]

Are these the same pollsters who told us Hillary was a shoo-in on election night?

No these are the same polls that predicted Hillary getting 2-3% more votes than Trump did.   Which turned out to be pretty close.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

No these are the same polls that predicted Hillary getting 2-3% more votes than Trump did.   Which turned out to be pretty close.

Care to quote those polls? Since it falls within a margin of error, any such poll would have described it as a "dead heat race" at the time. I don't remember anyone saying it.

[Alan Klein]

No these are the same polls that predicted Hillary getting 2-3% more votes than Trump did.   Which turned out to be pretty close.

The N Y Times gave  Clinton an 85% chance of winning the morning of the election.  That's about 6-1 odds against Trump.   For months before the election,  every TV show and political analyst explained with those maps how there was "no path to electoral victory" for Trump.   Until there was.  The polls were wrong.   Get over it.   

[pegelli]

Care to quote those polls? Since it falls within a margin of error, any such poll would have described it as a "dead heat race" at the time. I don't remember anyone saying it.

I think that's exactly the problem. The polls I saw here in Europe showed indeed a small margin for Clinton. It was however the analysis and commentary of these poll results that was way out of wack. Normally one would have expected that "objective" pollsters would have called it "too close to call", but they didn't. Their analysis and commentary was too much skewed by "wishful thinking". Even looking at the raw results I as a layman in statistics didn't understand why they had such high confidence in Clinton winning on such a small margin (and small sample size). Let's hope they have learned from this, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Robert Roaldi]

Then there's this....

Trump gets a folder full of positive news about himself twice a day
It’s known as the “propaganda document”



Who's a good boy???
                              You're a good boy!!!

I need to ask because I can't tell anymore. Is this for real?

[Schewe]

I need to ask because I can't tell anymore. Is this for real?

Sadly, yes...multiple sources. And semi-confirmed (or at least not denied) by Spicer (although he claims it's not really called the "propaganda document". So that's kinda a non-denial denial.

[Schewe]

Uh ho...does Trump think God is on our side?

Evangelical Adviser: God Has OK'd Trump to 'Take Out' Kim

Donald Trump's evangelical adviser Tuesday said God had given the president the authority to "take out" North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

"When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil," Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas said in a statement.

"In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un. I'm heartened to see that our president — contrary to what we've seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors — will not tolerate any threat against the American people. When President Trump draws a red line, he will not erase it, move it, or back away from it. Thank God for a President who is serious about protecting our country."

So, Trump has God's permission? Does anybody else think this is creepy? Who is Trump listening to, his generals or his religious advisors?

[Robert Roaldi]

Sadly, yes...multiple sources. And semi-confirmed (or at least not denied) by Spicer (although he claims it's not really called the "propaganda document". So that's kinda a non-denial denial.

Every day the bar gets lower. It's amazing to watch, in its own way.

[Schewe]

Trump still wants to treat addiction like a crime instead of a disease–which is backward and reminiscent of the stupid "Just Say No" approach of Nancy Reagan.

Addiction is both a mental and physical disease and should be treated like a medical condition not unlike type 2 diabetes or medical conditions caused by environmental rather than genetic conditions. It would seem that Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price might have a friggin' clue since he's a former medical professional (orthopedic surgeon). His background is, ironically one of the primary sources of opioid addiction caused by over prescription of opioid pain relievers.

So, rather than declare a health emergency, Trump is just gonna step up law enforcement and strengthening security on the southern border to stop illegal drugs–which isn't really doesn't address the problems of medically induced addiction caused by over prescribing...but hey, wave your hands and look busy is always easier than actually doing something useful.

Trump says he'll beat opioid epidemic with law-and-order approach

President Donald Trump on Tuesday vowed his administration would beat the opioid epidemic by beefing up law enforcement and strengthening security on the southern border to stop illegal drugs from entering the country.

Trump, joined in Bedminster, New Jersey, by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and other administration officials, emphasized a tough law-and-order approach, rather than new treatment or social programs, as the White House's primary strategy for halting an epidemic that kills 142 Americans every day, according to federal statistics.

"Strong law enforcement is absolutely vital to having a drug-free society," Trump said. "I'm confident that by working with our health care and law enforcement experts we will fight this deadly epidemic and the United States will win." The remarks echoed similar comments made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions earlier this summer.

Trump as a candidate vowed to confront a public health crisis that has hit states he carried in the presidential campaign — like West Virginia and Kentucky — especially hard.

Trump on Tuesday stopped short of declaring the crisis a national emergency — a recommendation the White House's opioid commission, led by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, made last week.

Price later told reporters the administration is treating the opioid epidemic as an emergency, but that it does not need to make a formal declaration.

Pretty sure 2015 & 2016 deaths have risen considerably...

Oh, so it's an emergency, but not serious enough to declare it as such.

[Alan Klein]

I think that's exactly the problem. The polls I saw here in Europe showed indeed a small margin for Clinton. It was however the analysis and commentary of these poll results that was way out of wack. Normally one would have expected that "objective" pollsters would have called it "too close to call", but they didn't. Their analysis and commentary was too much skewed by "wishful thinking". Even looking at the raw results I as a layman in statistics didn't understand why they had such high confidence in Clinton winning on such a small margin (and small sample size). Let's hope they have learned from this, but I'm not holding my breath.

First off, Presidents don't win elections by the popular vote.  It's the electoral vote that counts.  That's why all those maps of the 50 states on TV where the pundits explained over and over again for months how there was no chance for Trump to win electorally was the main mistake.    Trump actually won 306-232 electoral votes or 57%-43%.   The way the experts had the electoral votes going, Hillary should have won 60%-40%. 

Also, the so-called "minimal" 70,000 vote margin Trump had in the key states of Michigan, Wisconsin,  and Pennsylvania, are deceiving.  Clinton should have won those states by a million votes.  So what happened was that over a million traditional Democrats switched sides in those three key states, not just the 70,000 the media keeps referring too.  So the press should be talking about how 1,070,000 voters made the difference, not 70,000.  But as usual, they're distorting the results by only talking about the 70,000 to make his win in those three states seem less impressive than it was. 

In any case, if Clinton actually won those three states, the final electoral results would have been only 274 Clinton to 264 Trump or electorally 50.7% Clinton to 49.3% Trump, much, much less than her predicted landslide.  She had been expected to win with 335 electoral votes or over 60% of the electoral vote.  That means that she also didn't win many other states  where she had been expected to do better.

Like you said, the commentary was "out of wack and wishful thinking". 

[Peter McLennan]

Uh ho...does Trump think God is on our side?

Evangelical Adviser: God Has OK'd Trump to 'Take Out' Kim[/url? Does anybody else think this is creepy? Who is Trump listening to, his generals or his religious advisors?

Creepy doesn't begin to cover it.  Read the article from The Atlantic.
Alan refuses to because it's a "waste of his time", but the rest of us need to pay attention to this idiocy.

[Alan Klein]

Creepy doesn't begin to cover it.  Read the article from The Atlantic.
Alan refuses to because it's a "waste of his time", but the rest of us need to pay attention to this idiocy.

I agree that Trump shouldn't take military advice from the clergy.  On the other hand, Clinton took advice from Monica.

[Otto Phocus]

I don't know what is more disturbing

A religious adviser stating "When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,"  That sounds like a lot like how terrorists justify their actions.

or a President listening to this crap.

Last time I looked, the United States was not a theocracy.

[Alan Klein]

I don't know what is more disturbing

A religious adviser stating "When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary — including war — to stop evil,"  That sounds like a lot like how terrorists justify their actions.

or a President listening to this crap.

Last time I looked, the United States was not a theocracy.

You use to claim Trump was a heathen who supported bible thumpers only for political advantage.  Now you're saying he's a holy man who will go to war according to advice from preachers.  Which is it? 

I sincerely doubt Trump is going to listen to Deuteronomy. 

"Melania, please hand me my bible.  I want to check to see what I should do regarding North Korea.  Gee, I wonder if it says anything about Putin?"